IN 2002, Pakistan became the first country in South Asia to promulgate a Freedom of Information Ordinance, but this law remains weak on many fronts, especially regarding implementation mechanisms and a long list of exemptions. Identical laws were passed in Balochistan (2005) and Sindh (2006), but as mere copies of the ineffective federal ordinance, they too do not sufficiently ensure citizens’ access to information held by public bodies. Indeed, these Pakistani laws are in the bottom 20% in the Right to Information (RTI) index, a global ranking of RTI laws by the Canada-based Centre for Law and Democracy.
In 2010, the 18th Amendment to the Constitution recognized the right to information as a fundamental constitutional right. Through this amendment, Article 19-A was added, stating: “Every citizen shall have the right to access information in all matters of public importance subject to regulations and reasonable restrictions imposed by the law.”
While KP and Punjab lead the global movement for RTI, the federal, Sindh and Balochistan governments lag in ensuring citizens’ access to information. Opposition to RTI laws is expected, as they promote transparency and accountability. Solid RTI legislation prioritizes maximum disclosure, easy access, limited exemptions, no financial barriers for citizens and whistleblower protection. KP and Punjab have established information commissions to uphold these principles. KP’s commitment to reversing amendments exempting its assembly from RTI laws is crucial for protecting these laws from those who benefit from secrecy.
There is a need for a swift and effective mechanism to implement the decisions of information commissions. Constitutional courts should only be courts of appeal against the decisions of information commissions, as high courts have powers under Article 199 of the Constitution to protect fundamental rights. There is an ambiguity in the KP RTI Act about the appeal court, which the provincial assembly is expected to address soon.
The role of Public Information Officers (PIO) designated by each public body under the KP and Punjab RTI laws is central to the implementation of these laws. PIOs are the first point of contact between citizens and public bodies. The government and public bodies should facilitate PIOs in the proactive disclosure of information as much as possible.
This suggests a need for significantly reforming and modernizing mechanisms of traditional record-keeping by public bodies. As public records are digitized, public bodies will be able to provide information in a timely fashion. Furthermore, PIOs should be empowered to share information upon request as required by RTI laws. The current bureaucratic structure compels PIOs to seek permission from the heads of public bodies, the secretaries, before disclosing information. PIOs should not be bound by such restrictions and any departmental rule that binds them should be amended.
The number of information requests under RTI laws is expected to increase manifold as citizens become aware of these laws. Thus, the most important aspect of both Punjab and KP RTI laws is proactive disclosure. Public bodies should disclose as much information as possible proactively, using digital means. This will greatly reduce the number of information requests and limit the burden on PIOs to respond to such requests. The sooner the public bodies digitize public records, the better.
——————
The writer is a Practicing Lawyer of Peshawar High Court.
